Mediaboss Marketing

I expected to discuss all sorts of things with political scientists in Chicago last week, but Ill be honest: When it came to current politics, people were mostly talking about the 2024 presidential nominations especially the Republican one. And folks I spoke with were split right down the middle: About half thought that former President Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, and half threw up their hands and said they had no idea what would happen.

Im in that second group.

The argument that Trump has the nominationlocked up is pretty straightforward. No, we dont know for sure that hell be running in 2024, but he certainly is running for 2024 right now. That is, hes doing all the things that candidates for president do holding rallies, campaigning,raising moneyand, in his own fashion, putting together a policy platform. Sure, the platform begins and ends with complaining that people are unfair to Donald Trump, but thats pretty much all he did as presidentanyway.

Trump, the case continues, has strong support from primary votersand is liked by almost all of them. Thats usually a winning combination. Yes, a significant group of party actors, including many elected officials, appear to oppose him at least in theory. But only a very small subset of those who tell reporters off the record that Trump is a disaster for the party are willing to say sopublicly. Theres no reason to think that theyllbe any better at coordinating against him than they were in 2016, or that theyll be any better at convincing Republican voters to follow their lead.

Thats not all. In 2016, Trumps big vulnerability was that he had no apparent commitment to the normal Republican policy agenda. That shouldnt be a problem for him after four years in the White House. The first time around, Christian conservatives were skeptical; now, theyre among his strongest supporters. The most notable difference he had with Republican orthodoxy while in the White House was on foreign policy, and in 2024 a lot more party actors are on his side and few voters care about itanyway.

So why wouldnt he win?

I cant speak for everyonewho took thisposition. But for me, its less one big thing than many, many small ones. To begin with: I was wrong about 2016, and while I thinkI understand what happened, Id hesitatebefore making confident predictions aboutRepublican nomination politics again.

Beyond that? Ill note that while Republican voters by all accounts like Trump, thats not actually saying that much; most voters like politicians from their own party once they get to know them. Theres just no way to know how strong their attachment is to Trump how strong any voters attachment is to any politician until its put to the test. Well learn a little more about this when primaries resume in coming weeks. Should the candidates Trump endorsed do badly, its possible that the fear of opposing him will dissipate.

Then theres Trump himself. Yes, he certainly seems to want to be president again. But the idea that hes invincible among Republicans is far from proven. His 2016 nomination was a narrow one, aided by all sorts of odd events includinga fair amount of luck. He also has an electoral record now, and its not exactly an impressive one; after all, he lost re-election, and Republicans lost the House (in 2018) and the Senate (in 2020) while he was in office. His tantrum over losing the presidency and his false claims about fraud have widely been credited for the loss of two Senate seats in Georgia. Republicans may trust Trump more on policy than they once did, but they should have even less confidence that hell be a team player now. That could mean more opposition from party actors than last time.

That leaves the question of whether voters would listen if party actors tried to oppose Trump. They certainly didnt in 2016. Would it be different this time? It might depend on which party actors; if Fox News hosts and talk radio turned against Trump (or, perhaps, just strongly supported some other candidate) I could imagine it mattering.

And thats without getting into the possibility that Trumps various legal entanglements catch up to him. Or that hes less interested in being president again than he is in extracting money from Republican donors, a process that might be disrupted if he formally declared a run for office. Right now the nomination looks extremely valuable, given President Joe Bidens low approval ratings. Butthat could change, and if so Trump might shy away from the risk of a worse loss than he had in 2020.

Besides, were still almost two years from the first caucus or primary. At this point in the 1992 election cycle, incumbent president George H.W. Bush was so overwhelmingly popular that most high-profile Democrats passed on the race; by the time of the New Hampshire primary, Bush was so unpopular that a fringe candidate took 37% of the vote against him.

None of this is to say that Trump wont be the nominee. Its just a case for uncertainty. Perhaps Trumps triumph against all odds (and most expert opinion) in 2016 really does mean that the party is his as long as he wants it to be. Or perhaps it means that the party,the process or both are just a lot less predictable than I and others once believed. Which is true? Sorry. I have no idea.

Go here to see the original:
Is Donald Trump a Lock for the 2024 Nomination? - Bloomberg

Mentions of Donald Trump have been rare at the first few trials for people charged with storming the US Capitol, but that has changed: the latest Capitol riot defendant to go on trial is blaming his actions on the former president and his false claims about a stolen election.

Dustin Byron Thompson, an Ohio man charged with stealing a coat rack from the Capitol, doesnt deny that he joined the mob on 6 January 2021. But his lawyer vowed Tuesday to show that Trump abused his power to authorize the attack.

Describing Trump as a man without scruples or integrity, defense attorney Samuel Shamansky said the former president engaged in a sinister plot to encourage Thompson and other supporters to do his dirty work.

Its Donald Trump himself spewing the lies and using his position to authorize this assault, Shamansky told jurors Tuesday during the trials opening statements.Justice department prosecutor Jennifer Rozzoni said Thompson knew he was breaking the law that day.

He chose to be a part of the mayhem and chaos, she said.

Thompsons lawyer sought subpoenas to call Trump and Rudolph Giuliani as witnesses at his trial this week. A judge rejected that request but ruled that jurors can hear recordings of speeches that Trump and Giuliani delivered at a rally before the riot.

Thompsons jury trial is the third among hundreds of Capitol riot prosecutions. The first two ended with jurors convicting both defendants on all counts with which they were charged.

In a February court filing, Shamansky said he wanted to argue at trial that Thompson was acting at the direction of Trump and his various conspirators. The lawyer asked to subpoena others from Trumps inner circle, including former White House strategist Steve Bannon, former White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and former Trump lawyers John Eastman and Sidney Powell.

Prosecutors said Thompson cant show that Trump or Giuliani had the authority to empower him to break the law. They also noted that video of the rally speeches perfectly captures the tone, delivery and context of the statements to the extent they are marginally relevant to proof of Thompsons intent on 6 January.

Thompsons lawyer argued that Trump would testify that he and others orchestrated a carefully crafted plot to call into question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. Shamansky claimed that Giuliani incited rioters by encouraging them to engage in trial by combat and that Trump provoked the mob by saying that if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore.

Shamansky said Thompson, who lost his job during the pandemic, became an avid consumer of the conspiracy theories and lies about a stolen election.This is the garbage that Dustin Thompson is listening to day after day after day, Shamansky said. He goes down this rabbit hole. He listens to this echo chamber. And he acts accordingly.

US district Judge Reggie Walton ruled in March that any in-person testimony by Trump or Giuliani could confuse and mislead jurors.

More than 770 people have been charged with federal crimes arising from 6 January. Over 250 of them have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Thompson is the fifth person to be tried on riot-related charges.

Thompson has a co-defendant, Robert Lyon, who pleaded guilty to riot-related charges in March.

Thompson, then 36, and Lyon, then 27, drove from Columbus, Ohio, to Silver Spring, Maryland, stayed overnight at a hotel and then took an Uber ride into Washington DC on the morning of 6 January. After Donald Trumps speech, Thompson and Lyon headed over to the Capitol.

Thompson was wearing a Trump 2020 winter hat and a bulletproof vest when he entered the Capitol and went to the Senate parliamentarians office, where he stole two bottles of liquor and a coat rack worth up to $500, according to prosecutors.

Thompson is charged with six counts: obstructing Congress joint session to certify the electoral college vote, theft of government property, entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building.

Lyon pleaded guilty to theft of government property and disorderly conduct. Both counts are misdemeanors punishable by a maximum of one year imprisonment. Walton is scheduled to sentence Lyon on 3 June.

Read the original:
Capitol riot defendant blames actions on Trump and false election claims - The Guardian

Members of the Houses Jan. 6 committee are apparently split over whether to refer Donald Trump to the Justice Department, even though many if not all of the committee members appear to have concluded that the former president engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

Its absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing what a number of people around him were doing that they knew it was unlawful, Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said last weekend. They did it anyway. (Trump of course denies he has done anything wrong.)

There doesnt seem to be much doubt among the committee members about whether Trump committed federal crimes.

Indeed, the committee made that case in federal court recently, when it argued in a filing that it has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The evidence was enough to convince U.S. District Judge David Carter, who wrote that the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.

Referring to Trumps legal henchman John Eastman as part of a civil lawsuit seeking to block the House committee from obtaining big lie-related emails sent from and to Eastman, Carter wrote: Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history.

Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower it was a coup in search of a legal theory, the judge continued. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nations government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.

Despite all of this, members of the select committee probing the Capitol insurrection are reportedly worried that actually making a criminal referral might not be prudent. According to The New York Times, some members worry that even a largely symbolic referral would backfire by politically tainting the Justice Departments expanding investigation into the Jan. 6 assault and what led up to it.

You may have seen this movie before. Again and again during Trumps campaign, his presidency and now his post-presidency weve seen responsible figures determine that something must be done about Trumps behavior. And then, inevitably, they decide to let someone else do it.

Theyve rationalized their timidity as political prudence, but the result has been a pandemic of buck-passing.

In the 2016 campaign, Trumps Republican rivals mostly refused to take him on until it was too late, all the while hoping that someone else would do the hard work for them. After his election, congressional Republicans fell into line. They rationalized that appeasement as a matter of tactical savvy. I told myself I gotta have a relationship with this guy to help him get his mind right, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told political reporter Tim Alberta.

And we saw the same pattern with Roberts Mueller probe, which documented Trumps obstruction of justice at great length but declined to recommend either impeachment or criminal indictment.

To the end, though, Mueller hoped that someone else would take action. During congressional hearings, he was asked point-blank by lawmakers, "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

And Mueller responded with an unequivocal "yes." He also specifically affirmed that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office.

But that never happened.

Like other establishment figures who were rolled over by Trump, Mueller was held hostage by his excessive faith in guardrails.

In the end, as Andrew Weissmann, a member of Muellers team, wrote in his inside account, Where Law Ends, Mueller was so worried about overstepping his role that he opted instead to issue a mealy-mouthed report that documented all the ways Trump had obstructed justice but refused to do much of anything about it.

Like other establishment figures who were rolled over by Trump, Mueller was held hostage by his excessive faith in guardrails, institutional integrity and the virtues of staying in ones lane.

They brought cucumber sandwiches to a gunfight, and the outcome was never in doubt.

Even after Jan. 6, members of Trumps own party continued to engage in wish-casting. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared: "There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.

"A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name," he said. "These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

But McConnell voted against a Senate impeachment conviction, because, he argued, Congress had no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.

Once again, he held out hope somebody else might hold Trump accountable. President Trump, insisted McConnell, is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet yet. But that was more than a year ago, and no one else has taken action.

So now it is up the select committee and the Justice Department, which both seem to be caught in a cycle of hand-wringing. They worry about the taint of a referral and agonize over fears that Trump and the GOP will discredit any investigation as a partisan witch hunt.

But heres a reality check: No matter what they do, no matter how cautiously they act, Trump will react with bad faith and demagoguery.

The Justice Department could hire an avatar of respectability and integrity to handle the prosecution (see: Robert Mueller) and it wouldnt matter. Whatever it does, Trump will let loose the dogs of disinformation, deceit and obstruction.

Knowing it cant control the reaction, maybe the select committee should just do the right thing and finally, finally end the cycle of timidity, self-deterrence and buck-passing.

Original post:
Trump should be charged for Jan 6. Don't let the House pass the buck. - MSNBC

The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justices investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.

With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Bidens election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.

Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while theres growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Bidens win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trumps corrupt intent a necessary element to convict him probably requires more evidence and time.

In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold all January 6 perpetrators, at any level accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this assault on our democracy, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.

But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.

Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.

We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same, panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to do your job so we can do ours.

About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.

Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Bidens election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.

When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation, the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.

DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nations history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence and the most defendants, he added.

Bromwich added that people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.

The departments investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.

Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation and why charges have not been filed against Trump have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.

Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump more likely than not broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.

Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history, Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.

Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a criminal conspiracy to block Congress from certifying Bidens win.

On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme reportedly spearheaded by Trumps ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.

Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 Save America rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.

We won this election, and we won it by a landslide, Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. You dont concede, when theres theft involved, he said, urging the large crowd to fight like hell, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.

A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a circus of partisanship. And Budowich attacked Judge Carters ruling as absurd and baseless, noting that Carter was a Clinton-appointed judge in California.

Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck, he said.

On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent. Citing Carters ruling that Trump more likely than not broke the law, Ayer said that the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.

Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.

Garlands between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political, Aftergut said.

Theres nothing easy about the position Garlands in, Aftergut added. The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than youd require in any other case.

Ayer added: Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted, a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJs credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law.

There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.

Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts, the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.

That seems to fit with Garlands approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.

And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.

DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.

Garland, McQuade added, is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.

Ultimately, McQuade said that Garlands biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someones mind, but it is not impossible.

Read the original:
Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-president - The Guardian

Donald Trump Jr. has suggested that New York subway cameras were intentionally disabled for political reasons to prevent a mass shooting from being recorded.

The eldest son of former President Donald Trump made the remarks on Twitter Wednesday, referring to New York Mayor Eric Adams' admission that cameras were not working when a shooter opened fire on commuters on Tuesday. Trump Jr.'s comments are the latest in a string of tweets accusing law enforcement of bending to politics as they responded to the shooting.

Following the shooting, reports emerged that security cameras at Sunset Park's 36th Street station, the scene of the attack, were not working and did not capture the incident. Adams confirmed to WCBS that there was "some form of malfunction with the camera system," which he said was under review.

The shooting presented a significant challenge for Adams, a Democrat, who has prioritized public safety in the nation's largest city, particularly on its public transit system.

"Why do the security cameras never seem to work when the reality of the crime isn't good for the leftist narrative???" Trump Jr. said on Twitter.

Police on Wednesday arrested suspected shooter Frank James, who faces terrorism charges for the incident that left 10 people wounded.

Leading up to the shooting, James had posted videos to YouTube predicting a "civil war" between races. He also said that white people viewed Black people as being rightfully slaves. James in a video also criticized Adams, saying the mayor had contributed to his mental health problems and he had emerged from a facility with "more issues."

Trump Jr. on Wednesday retweeted a tweet from a writer for conservative blog RedState referencing James' videos saying "the media won't care a bit that he was motivated by left-wing talking points."

In another tweet, Trump Jr. suggested the attack wasn't described as "terror" because "the description wasn't good for the narrative."

He also took aim at the FBI, which was criticized by the former president and his allies for its investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia.

"Great work NYPD," wrote Trump Jr. "Despite the constant attacks from the leftist leaders of New York you guys still get it done... unlike the FBI leadership who seem far more interested in creating crimes and letting the actual bad guys go."

Twitter users responded to Trump Jr.'s tweet suggesting politics were behind the malfunctioning subway cameras by pointing to recently revealed text messages showing he sought to block certification of the 2020 election. Another Twitter user posted video of speeches given by Trump Jr. and his father before a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in 2020.

Another Twitter user pointed to Donald Trump's ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein was famously found dead in his New York jail cell and his death has been labeled a suicide.

However, conspiracy theories have continued to circulate that he was murdered by a powerful figure worried about potentially compromising information held by Epstein, who faced charges for running a sex trafficking operation.

A big driver behind the conspiracy theories was the two malfunctioning cameras outside his cell.

Newsweek has reached out to Adams' office for comment.

Read the original here:
Donald Trump Jr. Blames Failed Security Cameras on 'Leftist Narrative' - Newsweek